THE AGE OF HAMMURABI AND ITS INFLUENCE ON LATER PERIODS
Of no other period in the history of Babylon have we so intimate a
knowledge as that of the West-Semitic kings under whom the city first
attained the rank of capital. It was a time of strenuous growth, in the
course of which the long struggle with regard to language and racial
dominance was decided in favour of the Semite. But the victory involved
no break of continuity, for all the essential elements of Sumerian
culture were preserved, the very length of the struggle having proved
the main factor in securing their survival. There had been a gradual
assimilation on both sides, though naturally the Sumerian had the more
to give, and, in spite of his political disappearance, he continued to
exert an indirect influence. This he owed in the main to the energy
of the Western Semite, who completed the task of transforming a dying
culture, so that in its new embodiment it could be accepted by men of a
newer race.
Hammurabi's age was one of transition, and we have fortunately
recovered a great body of contemporaneous evidence on which to base
an analysis of its social and political structure. On the one hand
the great Code of Laws supplies us with the state's administrative
ideal and standard of justice.[1] On the other we have the letters of
the kings themselves, and the commercial and legal documents of the
period,[2] to prove that the Code was no dead letter but was accurately
adjusted to the conditions of the time. The possibility has long been
recognized of the existence of similar codes of early Sumerian origin,
and a copy of one of them, on a tablet of the Hammurabi period, has
recently been recovered.[3] But the value of Hammurabi's Code rests
not so much in any claim to extensive originality, but rather on its
correspondence to contemporary needs. It thus forms a first-rate
witness on the subjects with which it deals, and where it gives no
information, the letters and contracts of the period often enable us to
supply the deficiency.
For the purpose of legislation the Babylonian community was divided
into three main classes or grades of society, which corresponded
to well-defined strata in the social system. The highest or upper
class embraced all the officers or ministers attached to the court,
the higher officials and servants of the state, and the owners of
considerable landed property. But wealth or position did not constitute
the sole qualification distinguishing the members of the upper class
from that immediately below them. In fact, while the majority of its
members enjoyed these advantages, it was possible for a man to forfeit
them through his own fault or misfortune and yet to retain his social
standing and privileges. It would seem therefore that the distinction
was based on a racial qualification, and that the upper class, or
nobles, as we may perhaps term them,[4] were men of the predominant,
race, sprung from the West-Semitic or Amorite stock which had given
Babylon its first independent dynasty. In course of time its racial
purity would tend to become diluted by intermarriage with the older
inhabitants, especially where these had thrown in their lot with the
invaders and had espoused their cause. It is even possible that some
of the latter had from the first obtained recognition in its ranks in
return for military or political service. But, speaking broadly, we may
regard the highest class in the social order as representing a racial
aristocracy that had imposed itself.
The second class in the population comprised the great body of free men
who did not come within the ranks of the nobles; in fact, they formed
a middle class between the aristocracy and the slaves. They bore a
title which in itself implied a state of inferiority,[5] and though
they were not necessarily poor and could possess slaves and property,
they did not share the privileges of the upper class. It is probable
that they represented the subject race, derived in part from the old
Sumerian element in the population, in part from the Semitic strain
which had long been settled in Northern Babylonia and by intercourse
and intermarriage had lost much of its racial purity and independence.
The difference, which divided and marked off from one another these two
great classes of free men in the population, is well illustrated by the
scale of payments as compensation for injury which they were obliged
to make or were entitled to receive. Thus if a noble should be guilty
of stealing an ox, or other animal, or a boat, which was private or
temple property, he had to pay thirty times its value as compensation;
whereas, if the thief were a member of the middle class the penalty
was reduced to ten times the price, and, should he have no property
with which to pay, he was put to death. The penalty for man-slaughter
was also less if the assailant was a man of the middle class; he could
obtain a divorce more cheaply, and he paid his doctor or surgeon
a smaller fee for a successful operation. On the other hand, these
privileges were counterbalanced by a corresponding diminution of the
value at which his life and limbs were assessed.
That a racial distinction underlay the difference in social position
and standing is suggested by the current penalties for assault, in
accordance with which a noble could demand an exact retaliation for
injuries from one of his own class, whereas he merely paid a money
compensation to any man of the middle class he might have injured. Thus
if one noble happened to knock out the eye or the tooth of another, his
own eye or his own tooth was knocked out in return, and if he broke the
limb of one of the members of his own class, he had his corresponding
limb broken; but, if he knocked out the eye of a member of the middle
class, or broke his limb, he was fined one maneh of silver, and for
knocking out the tooth of such a man, he was fined one-third of a
maneh. Other regulations point to a similar cleavage in the social
strata, which can best be explained by a difference in race. Thus
if two members of the same class quarrelled and one of them made a
peculiarly improper assault on the other, the assailant was only fined,
the fine being larger if the quarrel was between two nobles. But if
such an assault was made by a member of the middle class upon a noble,
the assailant was punished by being publicly beaten in the presence of
the assembly, when he received sixty stripes from an ox-hide scourge.
The third and lowest class in the community were the slaves, who were
owned by both the upper classes, but were naturally more numerous
in the households of the nobles and on their estates. The slave was
his master's absolute property, and on the contract-tablets he is
often referred to as "a head," as though he were merely an animal. He
constantly changed hands, by sale, bequest, or when temporarily pledged
for a debt. For bad offences he was liable to severe punishment, such
as cutting off the ear, which was the penalty for denying his master,
or for making an aggravated assault upon a noble. But, on the whole,
his lot was not a particularly hard one, for he was a recognized
member of his master's household, and, as a valuable piece of
property, it was obviously to his owner's interest to keep him healthy
and in good condition. In fact, the value of the slave is attested by
the severity of the penalties exacted for abducting a male or female
slave from the owner's house and removing one from the city; for the
death penalty was imposed in such a case, as also on anyone harbouring
and taking possession of a runaway slave. On the other hand, a fixed
reward was paid by the owner to anyone by whom a runaway was captured
and brought back. Special legislation was also devised with the object
of rendering the theft of slaves difficult and their detection easy.
Thus, if a brander put a mark upon a slave without the owner's consent,
he was liable to have his hands cut off; and, if he could prove that he
had done so through being deceived by another man, that man was put to
death. There was a regular trade in slaves, and no doubt their numbers
were constantly increased by captives taken in war.
Though the slaves, as a class, had few rights of their own, there were
regulations in accordance with which, under certain circumstances,
they could acquire them, and even obtain their freedom. Thus it was
possible for an industrious slave, while still in his master's service,
to acquire property of his own, or a slave might inherit wealth from
relatives; and, in such circumstances, he was able with his master's
consent to purchase his freedom. Again, if a slave were captured by the
enemy and taken to a foreign land and sold, and were then brought back
by his new owner to his own country, he could claim his liberty without
having to pay compensation to either of his masters. Moreover, a slave
could acquire certain rights while still in slavery. Thus, if the owner
of a female slave had begotten children by her, he could not use her
as payment for a debt; and, in the event of his having done so, he was
obliged to ransom her by paying the original amount of the debt in
money. It was also possible for a male slave, whether owned by a noble
or by a member of the middle class, to marry a free woman, and if he
did so his children were free and did not become the property of his
master. His wife, too, if a free woman, retained her marriage-portion
on her husband's death, and supposing the couple had acquired property
during the time they lived together as man and wife, the owner of
the slave could only claim half of such property, the other half
being retained by the free woman for her own use and for that of her
children. The mere fact that such a union was possible suggests that
there was no very marked cleavage between the social status of the
better class of slaves and that of the humbler members of the middle
class.
The cultivation of the land, which formed the principal source of the
wealth of Babylonia,[6] was carried on mainly by slave labour, under
the control of the two upper classes of the population. The land itself
was largely in the hands of the crown, the temples, and the great
nobles and merchants who were landed proprietors; and, including that
still in communal or tribal possession,[7] a very large proportion was
cultivated on lease. The usual practice in hiring land for cultivation
was for the tenant to pay his rent in kind, by assigning a certain
proportion of the crop, generally a third or a half, to the owner,
who advanced the seed-corn.[8] The tenant was bound to till the
land and raise a crop, and should he neglect to do so he had to pay
the owner what was reckoned as the average rent of the land, and he
had also to break up the land and plough it before handing it back.
Elaborate regulations were in force to adjust the landowner's duties
and responsibilities on the one hand, and what was due to him from his
tenant on the other. As the rent of a field was usually reckoned at
harvest, and its amount depended on the size of the crop, it would have
been unfair that damage to the crop from flood or storm should have
been made up by the tenant; such a loss was shared equally by the owner
of the field and the farmer, though, if the latter had already paid
his rent at the time the damage occurred, he could not make a claim
for repayment. There is evidence that disputes were frequent not only
between farmers and landowners, but also between farmers and shepherds,
for the latter, when attempting to find pasture for their flocks,
often allowed their sheep to feed off the farmers' fields in spring.
For such cases a scale of compensation was fixed. If the damage was
done in the early spring, when the plants were still small, the farmer
harvested the crop and received a price in kind as compensation from
the shepherd. But if it occurred later in the year, when the sheep had
been brought in from the meadows and turned on to the common land by
the city-gate, the damage was heavier; in such a case the shepherd had
to take over the crop and compensate the farmer heavily.
The king himself was a very large owner of cattle and sheep, and he
levied tribute on the flocks and herds of his subjects. The owners
were bound to bring the young cattle and lambs, that were due from
them, to the central town of the district in which they dwelt, and they
were then collected and added to the royal flocks and herds. If the
owners attempted to hold back any that were due as tribute, they were
afterwards forced to incur the extra expense and trouble of driving the
beasts to Babylon. The flocks and herds owned by the king and the great
temples were probably enormous, and yielded a considerable revenue
in themselves apart from the tribute and taxes levied upon private
owners. Shepherds and herdsmen were placed in charge of them, and they
were divided into groups under head-men, who arranged the districts
in which the herds and flocks were to be grazed. The king received
regular reports from his chief shepherds and herdsmen, and it was the
duty of the governors of the larger towns and districts of Babylonia
to make tours of inspection and see that due care was taken of the
royal flocks. The sheep-shearing for all the flocks that were pastured
near the capital took place in Babylon, and the king used to send out
summonses to his chief shepherds to inform them of the day when the
shearing would take place.[9] Separate flocks, that were royal and
priestly property, were sometimes under the same chief officer, a fact
that tends to show that the king himself exercised a considerable
measure of control over the sacred revenues.
[Illustration: PORTION OF THE CODE OF HAMMURABI, COLS. 6-8. After
Délég. en Perse, Mém. IV, pl. 4.]
In the regulation of the pastoral and agricultural life of the
community, custom played a very important part, and this was recognized
and enforced by royal authority. Carelessness in looking after cattle
was punished by fine, but the owner was not held responsible for damage
unless negligence could be proved on his part. Thus a bull might go
wild at any time and gore a man, who would have no redress against its
owner. But if the beast was known to be vicious, and its owner had not
blunted its horns nor shut it up, he was obliged to pay compensation
for damage. On the other hand, the owner of cattle or asses, who had
hired them out, could exact compensation for the loss or ill-treatment
of his beasts. These were framed on the principle that the hirer was
responsible only for damage or loss which; he could reasonably have
prevented. If, for example, a lion killed a hired ox or ass in the
open country, or if an ox was killed by lightning, the loss fell upon
the owner and not on the man who had hired the beast. But if the hirer
killed the ox through carelessness or by beating it unmercifully, or
if the beast broke its leg while in his charge, he had to restore to
the owner another ox in its place. For less serious damage to the beast
the hirer paid compensation on a fixed scale.[10] It is clear that such
regulations merely gave the royal sanction to long-established custom.
Both for looking after their herds and for the cultivation of their
estates the landed proprietors depended to a great extent upon hired
herdsmen and farmers; and any dishonesty on the part of the latter with
regard to cattle, provender, or seed-corn was severely punished. A
theft of provender, for example, had to be made good, and the culprit
ran the additional risk of having his hands cut off. Heavy compensation
was exacted from any man, who, for his own profit, hired out oxen
which had been entrusted to his charge; while, if a farmer stole the
seed-corn supplied for the field he had hired, so that he produced no
crop to share with the owner, not only had he to pay compensation but
he was liable to be torn in pieces by oxen in the field he should have
cultivated.[11] In the age of Hammurabi the heavier penalties were no
doubt largely traditional, having come down from a more barbarous time
when dishonesty could only be kept in check by strong measures. Their
retention among the statutes doubtless acted as an effective deterrent,
and a severe sentence, if carried out occasionally in the case of an
aggravated offence, would have sufficed to maintain respect for the
regulations.
In the semi-tropical climate of Babylonia the canals played a vitally
important part for the successful prosecution of agriculture, and it
was to the royal interest to see that their channels were kept in a
proper state of repair and cleaned out at regular intervals. There
is evidence that nearly every king of the First Dynasty of Babylon
cut new canals and extended the system of irrigation and transport by
water that he had inherited. The rich silt carried down by the rivers
was deposited partly in the canals, especially in those sections
nearer the main stream, with the result that the bed of a canal was
constantly in process of being raised. Every year it was necessary to
dig this deposit out and pile it upon the banks. Every year the banks
rose higher and higher, until a point was reached when the labour
involved in getting rid of the silt became greater than that required
for cutting a new channel. Hence sections of a canal were constantly
being recut alongside the old channel, and it is probable that many of
the canals, the cutting of which is commemorated in the texts, were
really reconstructions of older streams, the beds of which had become
hopelessly silted up.
At the present day the traveller in certain parts of Babylonia comes
across the raised embankments of old canals extending across the plain
within a short distance of each other, and their parallel course is to
be explained by the process of recutting, which was put off as long
as possible, but was at last necessitated by the growing height of
the banks. As the bed of a canal gradually rose too, the high banks
served the purpose of retaining the stream, and these were often washed
away by the flood-water which came down from the hills in spring. An
interesting letter has been preserved, that was written by Hammurabi's
grandson, Abi-eshu', who describes a sudden rise of this sort in the
level of the Irnina Canal so that it overflowed its banks.[12] At the
time the king was building a palace in the city of Kâr-Irnina, which
was supplied by the Irnina Canal, and every year a certain amount of
work was put into the building. At the time the letter was written
little more than a third of the year's work had been done, when the
building-operations were stopped by flood, the canal having overflowed
its banks so that the water rose right up to the town-wall.
It was the duty of the local governors to see that the canals were kept
in good repair, and they had the power of requisitioning labour from
the inhabitants of villages and the owners of land situated on or near
the banks. In return, the villagers had the right of fishing in the
waters of a canal along the section in their charge, and any poaching
by other villagers in their part of the stream was strictly forbidden.
On one occasion in the reign of Samsu-iluna, Hammurabi's son, fishermen
from the village of Itabim went down in their boats to the district
of Shakanim, and caught fish there contrary to local custom. So the
inhabitants of Shakanim complained to the king of this infringement
of their rights, and he sent a palace-official to the authorities of
Sippar. in the jurisdiction of which the villages in question lay, with
instructions to inquire into the matter and take steps to prevent any
poaching in the future. Fishing by line and net was a regular industry,
and the preservation of rights in local waters was jealously guarded.
The larger canals were fed directly from the river, especially along
the Euphrates, whose banks were lower than those of the swifter
Tigris. But along the latter river, and also along the banks of the
canals, it will be obvious that some means had to be employed to
raise the water for purposes of irrigation from the main channel to
the higher level of the land. Reference is made in the Babylonian
inscriptions to irrigation-machines,[13] and, although their exact form
and construction are not described, they must have been very similar
to those employed at the present day. The most primitive method of
raising water, which is commoner to-day in Egypt than in Mesopotamia,
is the _shadduf,_ which is worked by hand. It consists of a beam
supported in the centre; and at one end a bucket is suspended for
raising the water, while at the other end is fixed a counter-weight.
Thus comparatively little labour is required to raise the bucket when
full. That this contrivance was employed on the Tigris is proved by an
Assyrian bas-relief, found at Kuyunjik, with representations of the
_shadduf_ in operation. Two of them are being used, the one above the
other, to raise the water to successive levels. These were probably
the contrivances usually employed by the early Babylonians for raising
the water to the level of their fields, and the fact that they were
light and easily removed must have made them tempting objects to the
dishonest former. A scale of compensation was therefore in force,
regulating the payments to be made to the owner by a detected thief.
From the fact that these varied, according to the class and value
of the machine he stole, we may infer that other contrivances, of a
heavier and more permanent character, were also employed.
One of these must certainly have corresponded to a very primitive
arrangement that is in general use at the present day in Mesopotamia,
particularly along the Tigris, where the banks are high and steep. A
recess or cutting with perpendicular sides is driven into the bank,
and a wooden spindle is supported on struts in a horizontal position
over the recess, which resembles a well with one side opening on to the
river. A rope running over the spindle is fastened to a skin in which
the water is raised from the river, being drawn up by horses, donkeys,
or cattle harnessed to the other end of the rope. To empty the skin by
hand into the irrigation channel would, of course, entail considerable
time and labour, and, to avoid this necessity, an ingenious contrivance
is employed. The skin is sewn up, not in the form of a closed bag,
but of a bag ending in a long narrow funnel. While the skin is being
filled and drawn to the top, the funnel is kept raised by a thin line
running over a lower spindle and fastened off to the main rope, so
that both are pulled up together by the beasts. The positions of the
spindles and the length of the ropes are so adjusted, that the end
of the funnel stops just above a wooden trough on the bank below the
struts, while the rest of the skin is drawn up higher and shoots its
water through the funnel into the trough. The trough is usually made
from half the trunk of a date-palm, hollowed out, and one end leads
to the irrigation-channel on the bank. To give the beasts a better
purchase in pulling up the weight of water, an inclined plane is cut
in the ground, sloping away from the machine, and up and down this the
beasts are driven, the skin filling and emptying itself automatically.
To increase the supply of water, two skins are often employed side by
side, each with its own tackle and set of beasts, and, as one is drawn
up full, the other is let down empty. Thus a continuous flow of water
is secured, and not more than one man or boy is required to keep each
set of beasts moving. No more effective or simpler method could be
devised of raising water to a considerable height, and there can be no
doubt that, at the period of the First Dynasty, cattle were employed
not only for ploughing, but for working primitive irrigation-machines
of this character.
On the Euphrates, where the river-banks are lower, a simple form of
water-wheel was probably in use then as it is to-day, wherever there
was sufficient current to work one. And the advantage of this form of
machine is that, so long as it is in order, it can be unlocked at will
and kept working without supervision day and night. The wheel is formed
of stripped boughs and branches nailed together, with spokes joining
the outer rims to a roughly hewn axle. Around the outer rim are tied a
series of rough earthenware cups or bottles, and a few rude paddles are
fixed to the wheel, projecting beyond the rim. The wheel is then set
up in place near the bank of the river, its axle resting on pillars of
rough masonry. The current turns the wheel, and the bottles, dipping
below the surface, are raised up full, and empty their water into
a wooden trough at the top. The banks of the Euphrates are usually
sloping, and the water is conducted from the trough to the fields along
a small aqueduct or earthen embankment. Such wheels to-day are usually
set up where there is a slight drop in the river-bed and the water runs
swiftly over shallows. In order to span the difference in level between
the fields and the summer height of the stream the wheels are often
huge contrivances, and their rough construction causes them to creak
and groan as they turn with the current. In a convenient place in the
river several of these are sometimes set up side by side, and their
noise when at work can be heard at a great distance.[14]
It is not unlikely that the later Sumerians had already evolved these
primitive forms of irrigation-machine, and that the Babylonians of
the First Dynasty merely inherited them and passed them on to their
successors. When once invented they were incapable of very great
improvement. In the one the skin must always remain a skin; in the
other the wheel must always be lightly constructed of boughs, or the
strength of the current would not suffice to turn it. We have seen
reason to believe that, in the palace of Nebuchadnezzar II. at Babylon,
the triple well in the north-west corner may be best explained as
having formed the water-supply for a hydraulic machine, consisting of
an endless chain of buckets passing over a great wheel. Such is a very
common form of raising water in Babylonia at the present day. It is
true that in some of these machines the wheel for the buckets is still
geared by means of rough wooden cogs to the long pole or winch, turned
by beasts, who move round in a circle. But it is very unlikely that
the early Babylonians had evolved the principle of the cogged wheel,
and it was probably not till the period of the later Assyrian empire
that bronze was so plentiful that it could have been used in sufficient
quantity for buckets on an endless chain. There seems reason to believe
that Sennacherib himself introduced an innovation when he employed
metal in the construction of the machines that supplied water to his
palace;[15] and we may infer that even in the Neo-Babylonian period a
contrivance of that sort was still a royal luxury, and that the farmer
continued to use the more primitive machines, sanctioned by immemorial
usage, which he could make with his own hands.
[Illustration: FIG. 40.
THE OLD BABYLONIAN FORM OF PLOUGH IN USE.
The drawing is taken from seal-impressions on a tablet of the Kassite
period.
(After Clay.)]
The manner in which the agricultural implements employed in early
Babylonia have survived to the present day is well illustrated by
their form of plough, which closely resembles that still in use in
parts of Syria. We have no representation of the plough of the First
Babylonian Dynasty, but this was doubtless the same as that of the
Kassite period, of which a very interesting representation has recently
been recovered. On a tablet found at Nippur and dated in the fourth
year of Nazi-Maruttash, are several impressions of a cylinder-seal
engraved with a representation of three men ploughing.[16] The plough
is drawn by two humped bulls, or zebu, who are being driven by one of
the men, while another holds the two handles of the plough and guides
it. The third man has a bag of seed-corn slung over his shoulders
and is in the act of feeding seed with his right hand into a tube or
grain-drill, down which it passed into the furrow made by the plough.
At the top of the tube is a bowl, with a hole in the bottom opening
on to the tube, which acted as a funnel and enabled the sower to drop
the seed in without scattering it. This is the earliest representation
of the Babylonian plough that we possess, and its value is increased
by the fact that the plough is seen in operation. The same seed-drill
occurs in three later representations. One of these also dates from
the Kassite period, being found upon a boundary-stone of the period of
Meli-Shipak II.,[17] on which it is sculptured as the sacred symbol
of Geshtinna, the goddess of the plough.[18] The other two are of
the Assyrian period, one being represented in enamelled brick on the
walls of the palace at Khorsabad,[19] the other being carved among the
symbols on the Black Stone of Esarhaddon, on which he gives an account
of his restoration of Babylon.[20] Similar ploughs, with grain-drills
of precisely the same structure, are still used in Syria at the present
time.[21]
Before ploughing and sowing his land the Babylonian farmer prepared
it for irrigation by dividing it up into a number of small squares
or oblong patches, each separated from the others by a low bank of
earth. Some of the banks, that ran lengthways through the field, were
made into small channels, the ends of which were connected with his
main irrigation-stream. No gates nor sluices were employed, and, when
he wished to water one of his fields, he simply broke away the bank
opposite one of his small channels and let the water flow into it.
When it reached the part of his land he wished to water, he blocked the
channel with a little earth and broke down its bank so that the water
flowed over one of the small squares and soaked it.
[Illustration; A MODERN GUFA Photo by Messrs. Underwood & Underwood.]
He could then repeat the process with the next square, and so on,
afterwards returning to the main channel and stopping the flow of water
by blocking up the hole he had made in the bank. Such is the present
process of irrigation in Mesopotamia, and there is no doubt that it
was adopted by the early Babylonians. It was extremely simple, but
needed care and vigilance, especially when water was being carried into
several parts of an estate at once. Moreover, one main channel often
supplied the fields of several farmers, and, in return for his share
of the water, it was the duty of each man to keep its banks, where it
crossed his land, in repair. If he failed to do so and the water forced
a breach and flooded his neighbour's field, he had to pay compensation
in kind for any crop that was ruined, and, if he could not pay, his
goods were sold, and his neighbours, whose fields had been damaged,
shared the proceeds of the sale. Similarly, if a farmer left his water
running and forgot to shut it off, he had to pay compensation for any
damage it might do to a neighbouring crop.
The date-palm formed the chief secondary source of the country's
wealth, for it grew luxuriantly in the alluvium and supplied the
Babylonians with one of their principal articles of diet.[22] From
it, too, they made a fermented wine, and a species of flour for
baking; its sap yielded palm-sugar, and its fibrous bark was suitable
for weaving ropes, while its trunk furnished a light but tough
building-material. The early Babylonian kings encouraged the laying
out of date-plantations and the planting of gardens and orchards; and
special regulations were made with that object in view. For a man could
obtain a field for the purpose without paying a yearly rent. He could
plant and tend it for four years, and in the fifth year of his tenancy
the original owner of the land took half the garden in payment, while
the planter kept the other half for himself. Care was taken to see
that the bargain was properly carried out, for, if a bare patch had
been left in the plantation, it was reckoned in the planter's half;
and should the tenant neglect the trees during his first four years
of occupation, he was still liable to plant the whole plot without
receiving his half of it, and he had to pay compensation in addition,
which varied in amount according to the original condition of the land.
In this way the authorities ensured that land should not be taken over
and allowed to deteriorate. For the hire of a plantation the rent was
fixed at two-thirds of its produce, the tenant providing all labour and
supplying the necessary irrigation-water.
[Illustration: FIG. 41.
ASSYRIAN KELEK ON THE TIGRIS. (After Layard.)]
From the royal letters of the period of the First Dynasty we know that
the canals were not only used for irrigation, but also as water-ways
for transport.---The letters contain directions for the bringing of
corn, dates, sesame-seed, and wood to Babylon, and we also know that
wool and oil were carried in bulk by water. For transport of heavy
goods on the Tigris and Euphrates it is possible that rafts, floated
on inflated skins, were used from an early period, though the earliest
evidence we have of their employment is furnished by the bas-reliefs
from Nineveh. Such rafts have survived to the present day,[23] and
they are specially adapted for the transport of heavy materials, for
they are carried down by the current, and are kept in the main stream
by means of huge sweeps or oars. Being formed only of logs of wood and
skins, they are not costly, for wood was plentiful in the upper course
of the rivers. At the end of the journey, after the goods were landed,
they were broken up, the logs being sold at a profit, and the skins,
after being deflated, were packed on donkeys to return up stream by
caravan.[24]
[Illustration: FIG. 42.
THE ASSYRIAN PROTOTYPE OF THE GUFA.
(From a bas-relief in the British Museum.)]
The use of such _keleks_ can only have been general when through-river
communication was general, but, since we know that Hammurabi included
Assyria within his dominions, it is not impossible that they may date
from at least as early a period as the First Dynasty. For purely local
traffic in small bulk the _gufa,_ or light coracle, may have been used
in Babylonia at this time, for its representation on the Assyrian
monuments corresponds exactly with its structure at the present time
as used; on the lower Tigris and Euphrates. The _gufa_ is formed of
wicker-work coated with bitumen, but some of those represented on the
sculptures from Nineveh appear to have been covered with skins as in
the description of Herodotus.[25]
In the texts and inscriptions of the early period ships are referred
to, and these were undoubtedly the only class of vessels employed on
the canals for conveying supplies in bulk by water. The size of such
ships, or barges, was reckoned by the amount of grain they were capable
of carrying, measured by the _gur,_ the largest measure of capacity. We
find vessels of very different size referred to, varying from five to
seventy-five _gur_ and over. The larger class probably resembled the
sailing barges and ferry-boats in use to-day,[26] which are built of
heavy timbers and have flat bottoms when intended for the transport of
beasts. In Babylon at the time of the First Dynasty a boat-builder's
fee for constructing a vessel of sixty _gur_ was fixed at two shekels
of silver, and it was proportionately less for vessels of smaller
capacity. A boat-builder was held responsible for unsound work, and
should defects develop in a vessel within a year of its being launched,
he was obliged to strengthen or rebuild it at his own expense. Boatmen
and sailors formed a numerous class in the community, and the yearly
wage of a man in such employment was fixed at sixty _gur_ of corn.
Larger vessels carried crews under the command of a captain, or chief
boatman, and there is evidence that the vessels owned by the king
included many of the larger type, which he employed for carrying grain,
wool and dates, as well as wood and stone for building-operations.
[Illustration: FIG. 43.
ASSYRIAN RAFT OF LOGS ON THE TIGRIS.
(From a bas-relief in the British Museum.)]
It is probable that there were regular officials, under the king's
control, who collected dues and looked after the water-transport in the
separate sections of the river, or canal, on which they were stationed.
It would have been their duty to report any damage or defect in the
channel to the king, who would send orders to the local governor
that the necessary repairs should be put in hand. One of Hammurabi's
letters deals with the blocking of a canal at Erech, about which he
had received such reports. The dredging already undertaken had not
been thoroughly done, so that the canal had soon silted up again and
boats were prevented from reaching the city; in his letter Hammurabi
sent pressing orders that the canal was to be rendered navigable
within three days.[27] Special regulations were also in force with
regard to the respective responsibilities of boat-owners, boatmen and
their clients. If a boatman hired a boat from its owner, he was held
responsible for it, and had to replace it should it be lost or sunk;
but if he refloated it, he had only to pay the owner half its value
for the damage it had sustained. Boatmen were also responsible for
the safety of goods, such as corn, wool, oil or dates, which they had
undertaken to carry for hire, and they had to make good any total loss
due to their own carelessness. Collisions between two vessels were also
provided for, and should one of the boats have been moored at the time,
the boatman of the other vessel had to pay compensation for the boat
that was sunk as well as for the lost cargo, the owner of the latter
estimating its value upon oath. Many cases in the courts probably arose
out of loss or damage to goods in course of transport by water.
The commercial activities of Babylon at the time of the First Dynasty
led to a considerable growth in the size of the larger cities, which
ceased to be merely local centres of distribution and began to engage
in commerce farther afield. Between Babylonia and Elam close commercial
relations had long been maintained, but Hammurabi's western conquests
opened up new markets to the merchants of his capital. The great
trade-route up the Euphrates and into Syria was no longer blocked by
military outposts and fortifications, placed there in the vain attempt
to keep back the invasion of Amorite tribes; and the trade in pottery
with Carchemish, of which we have evidence under the later kings of
the First Dynasty,[28] is significant of the new relations established
between Babylonia and the West. The great merchants were, as a body,
members of the upper class, and while they themselves continued to
reside in Babylon, they employed traders who carried their goods abroad
for them by caravan.
Even Hammurabi could not entirely guarantee the safety of such traders,
for attacks by brigands were then as common in the Nearer East as
at the present day; and there was always the additional risk that a
caravan might be captured by the enemy, if it ventured too near a
hostile frontier. In such circumstances the king saw to it that the
loss of the goods was not borne by the agent, who had already risked
his life and liberty in undertaking their transport. For, if such an
agent had been forced in the course of his journey to give up some of
the goods he was carrying, he had to specify the exact amount on oath
on his return, and he was then acquitted of all responsibility. But if
it could be proved before the elders of the city that he had attempted
to cheat his employer by misappropriating money or goods to his own
use, he was obliged to pay the merchant three times the value of the
goods he had taken. The law was not one-sided and afforded the agent
equal protection in relation to his more powerful employer; for should
the latter be convicted of an attempt to defraud his agent, by denying
that the due amount had been returned to him, he had to pay his agent
as compensation six times the amount in dispute. The merchant always
advanced the goods or money with which to trade, and the fact that he
could, if he wished to do so, fix his own profit at double the value of
the capital, is an indication of the very satisfactory returns obtained
at this period from foreign commerce. But the more usual practice was
for merchant and trader to share the profits between them, and, in
the event of the latter making such bad bargains that there was a loss
on his journey, he had to refund to the merchant the full value of
the goods he had received. At the time of the First Dynasty asses and
donkeys were the beasts of burden employed for carrying merchandise,
for the horse was as yet a great rarity and was not in general use in
Babylonia until after the Kassite conquest.[29]
A large number of the First Dynasty contracts relate to commercial
journeys of this sort, and record the terms of the bargains entered
into between the interested parties. Such partnerships were sometimes
concluded for a single journey, but more often for longer periods of
time. The merchant always demanded a properly executed receipt for
the money or goods he advanced to the trader, and the latter received
one for any deposit or pledge he might have made in token of his good
faith. In reckoning their accounts on the conclusion of a journey, only
such amounts as were specified in the receipts were regarded as legal
obligations, and, if either party had omitted to obtain his proper
documents, he did so at his own risk. The market-places of the capital
and the larger towns must have been the centres where such business
arrangements were transacted, and official scribes were probably always
in attendance to draw up the terms of any bargain in the presence of
other merchants and traders, who acted as witnesses. These had their
names enumerated at the close of the document, and since they were
chosen from local residents, some were always at hand to testify in
case of any subsequent dispute.
The town-life in Babylonia at this time must have had many features in
common with that of any provincial town in Mesopotamia to-day, except
that the paternal government of the First Dynasty undoubtedly saw to it
that the streets were kept clean, and made strenuous efforts to ensure
that private houses should be soundly built and maintained in proper
repair. We have already followed out the lines of some of the streets
in ancient Babylon,[30] and noted that, while the foundations of the
houses were usually of burnt brick, crude brick was invariably employed
for their upper structure. They were probably all buildings of a single
story, their flat mud roofs, supported on a layer of brush-wood with
poles for rafters, serving as a sleeping-place for their inmates during
the hot season. Contemporary evidence goes to show that, before the
period of Hammurabi, private houses had not been very solidly built,
for his legislation contemplates the possibility of their falling
and injuring the inmates. In the case of new houses the law fixed
the responsibility upon the builder, and we may infer that the very
heavy penalties exacted for bad work led to a marked improvement in
construction. For, when such a newly built house fell and crushed the
owner so that he died, the builder himself was liable to be put to
death. Should the fall of the house kill the owner's son, the builder's
own son was slain; and, if one or more of the owner's slaves were
killed, the builder had to restore him slave for slave. Any damage to
the owner's possessions was also made good by the builder, who had in
addition to rebuild the house at his own cost, or repair any portion
of it that had fallen. On the other hand, payment for sound work was
guaranteed, and the fact that the scale of payment was fixed by the
area of ground covered by the building, is direct evidence that the
houses of the period consisted of no more than one story. The beginning
of town-planning on systematic lines, with streets running through and
crossing each other at right angles, of which we have noted evidence at
Babylon, may perhaps date from the Hammurabi period; but no confident
opinion on the point can be expressed until further excavation has been
undertaken in the earlier strata of the city.[31]
[Illustration: I. A SMALL KELEK ON THE TIGRIS AT BAGHDAD. II.
FERRY-BOATS ON THE EUPHRATES AT BIREJIK.]
We have recovered from contemporary documents a very full picture
of family life in early Babylonia, for the duties of the separate
members of a family to one another were regulated by law, and
any change in relationship was duly attested and recorded in legal
form before witnesses. Minute regulations were in force with regard
to marriage, divorce and the adoption and maintenance of children,
while the provision and disposal of marriage-portions, the rights of
widows and the laws of inheritance were all controlled by the state
upon traditional lines. Perhaps the most striking feature in the
social system was the recognized status of the wife in the Babylonian
household, and the extremely independent position enjoyed by women
in general. Any marriage to be legally binding had to be accompanied
by a duly executed and attested marriage-contract, and without this
necessary preliminary a woman was not regarded as a wife in the legal
sense. On the other hand, when once such a marriage-contract had been
drawn up and attested, its inviolability was stringently secured.
Chastity on the wife's part was enforced under severe penalty;[32] but
on the other hand the husband's responsibility to maintain his wife in
a position suitable to their circumstances was also recognized.
The law gave the wife ample protection, and in the case of the
husband's desertion allowed her, under certain conditions, to become
the legal wife of another man. If the husband wilfully deserted her
and left his city under no compulsion, she might remarry and he could
not reclaim her on his return. But if his desertion was involuntary,
as in the case of a man taken in battle and carried off as a prisoner,
this rule did not apply; and the wife was allowed to shape her action
during his absence in accordance with the condition of her husband's
affairs. The regulations in such a case were extraordinarily in favour
of the woman. If the husband was possessed of property sufficient to
maintain the wife during the period of his captivity, she had no excuse
for remarriage; and, should she become the wife of another man, the
marriage was not regarded as legal and she was liable to the extreme
penalty for adultery. But if the husband had not sufficient means for
his wife's maintenance, it was recognized that she would be thrown on
her own resources, and she was permitted to remarry. The returning
captive could claim his wife, but the children of the second marriage
remained with their own father. The laws of divorce, too, safeguarded
the woman's interests, and only dealt with her severely if it could
be proved that she had wasted her household and failed in her duty as
a wife; in such a case she could be divorced without compensation,
and even reduced to the condition of a slave in her husband's house.
But, in the absence of such proof, her maintenance was fully secured;
for the husband had to return her marriage-portion, and, if there had
been none, he must make her an allowance. She also had the custody of
her children, for whose maintenance and education the husband had to
provide; and, at his death, the divorced wife and her children could
inherit a share of his estate.[33] The contraction of a permanent
disease by the wife was also held to constitute no grounds for a
divorce.
Such regulations throw an interesting light on the position of
the married woman in the Babylonian community, which was not only
unexampled in antiquity but compares favourably, in point of freedom
and independence, with her status in many countries of modern Europe.
Still more remarkable were the privileges capable of attainment by
unmarried women of the upper class, who in certain circumstances were
entitled to hold property in their own names and engage in commercial
undertakings. To secure such a position a woman took vows, by which she
became a member of a class of votaries attached to one of the chief
temples in Babylon, Sippar, or another of the great cities.[34] The
duties of such women were not sacerdotal, and, though they generally
lived together, in a special building, or convent, attached to the
temple, they enjoyed a position of great influence and independence in
the community. A votary could possess property in her own name, and on
taking her vows was provided with a portion by her father, exactly as
though she were being given in marriage. This was vested in herself,
and did not become the property of her order, nor of the temple to
which she was attached; it was devoted entirely to her maintenance, and
after her father's death, her brothers looked after her interest, and
she could farm the property out. Upon her death her portion returned
to her own family, unless her father assigned her the privilege of
bequeathing it; but any property she inherited she could bequeath, and
she had not to pay taxes on it. She had considerable freedom, could
engage in commerce on her own account, and, should she desire to do so,
could leave, the convent and contract a form of marriage.
While securing her these privileges, the vows she took entailed
corresponding responsibilities. Even when married, a votary was still
obliged to remain a virgin, and, should her husband desire children,
she could not bear them herself, but must provide him with a maid or
concubine. But, in spite of this disability, she was secured in her
position as the permanent head of the household. The concubine, though
she might bear the husband children, was always the wife's inferior,
and should she attempt to put herself on a level with the votary, the
latter could brand her and put her with the female slaves; while in the
event of the concubine proving barren, she could be sold. Unmarried
votaries, too, could live in houses of their own and dispose of their
time and money in their own way. But a high standard of commercial
and social morality was expected from them, and severe penalties were
imposed for its infringement. No votary, for example, was permitted
to open a beer-shop, and should she even enter one, she ran the risk
of being put to death. An unmarried votary also enjoyed the status
of a married woman, and the penalty for slandering one was branding
in the forehead. That the social position enjoyed by a votary was
considerable is proved by the fact that many women of good family, and
even members of the royal house, took vows.
It is a striking fact that women of an Eastern race should have
achieved such a position of independence at the beginning of the second
millennium. The explanation is perhaps to be sought in the great part
already played by commerce in Babylonian life. Among contemporary
races, occupied mainly by agriculture and war, woman's activity was
necessarily restricted to the rearing of children and to the internal
economy of the household. But with the growth of Babylonian trade and
commercial enterprise, it would seem that the demand arose, on the
part of women of the upper class, to take part in activities in which
they considered themselves capable of joining.[35] The success of the
experiment was doubtless due in part to the high standard of morality
exacted, and in part to the prestige conferred by association with the
religious cult.
The administration of justice at the period of the First Dynasty was
carried out by duly appointed courts of law under the supervision of
the king. The judges were appointed by the crown, and a check was put
upon any arbitrary administration of the law by the fact that the
elders of the city sat with them and assisted them in hearing and
sifting evidence. When once a judgment had been given and recorded, it
was irrevocable, and if any judge attempted to alter such a decision,
he was expelled from his judgment-seat and debarred from exercising
judicial functions in the future. The regulation was probably intended
to prevent the possibility of subsequent bribery; and, if a litigant
considered that justice had not been done, it was always open to him
to appeal to the king. Hammurabi's letters prove that he exercised
strict supervision, not only over the cases decided in the capital,
but also over those which were tried in the other great cities of
Babylonia, and it is clear that he attempted to stamp out corruption
on the part of all those invested with authority. On one occasion he
had been informed of a case of bribery in the town of Dûr-gurgurri,
and he at once ordered the governor of the district to investigate
the charge and send the guilty parties to Babylon for punishment. The
bribe, too, was to be confiscated and despatched to Babylon under seal,
a wise provision that would have tended to discourage those inclined to
tamper with the course of justice, while at the same time it enriched
the state.[36] The king probably tried all cases of appeal in person,
when it was possible; but in distant cities he deputed this duty to
local officials. Many of the cases that came before him arose from the
extortions of money-lenders,[37] and the king had no mercy when fraud
on their part was proved.
The relations maintained by the king with the numerous classes of
the priesthood was also very close, and the control he exercised
over the chief priests and their subordinates appears to have been
as effective as that he maintained over the judicial authorities
throughout the country. Under the Sumerians there had always been a
tendency on the part of the more powerful members of the hierarchy to
usurp the prerogatives of the crown,[38] but this danger appears to
have been fully discounted under the rule of the Western Semites. One
important section of the priestly body were the astrologers, whose
duty it probably was to make periodical reports to the king on the
conjunctions and movements of the heavenly bodies, with the object of
ascertaining whether they portended good or evil to the state. The
later Assyrian practice may well have had its origin at this period,
and we may conclude that the regulation of the calendar was carried out
in accordance with such advice. One of Hammurabi's letters has come
down to us in which he writes to inform Sin-idinnam, his local governor
of Larsa, that it had been decided to insert an intercalary month in
the calendar. He writes that, as the year, that is the calendar, had
a deficiency, the month that was beginning was to be registered as
the second Elul; and he adds the very practical reminder, that the
insertion of the extra month would not justify any postponement in the
payment of the regular tribute due from the city of Larsa.[39] The
lunar calendar of the Babylonians rendered the periodical intercalation
of months necessary, in order that it should be made to correspond to
the solar year; and the duty of watching for the earliest appearance of
the new moon and fixing the first day of each month, was among the most
important of the functions performed by the official astrologers.
In the naming of the year the priesthood must also have played an
important part, since the majority of the events from which the
years were named were of a religious character. The system, which
was inherited from the Sumerians, cannot have been a very convenient
one,[40] and no doubt it owed its retention to the sanctity of the
religious rites and associations attaching to it. There can be little
doubt that, normally, the naming of the year took place at the New
Year's Feast, and, when the event commemorated in the formula was the
installation of a chief priest or the dedication of temple-furniture,
the royal act, we may assume, was performed on the day the year
was named.[41] Often merely a provisional title was adopted from
the preceding formula, and then perhaps no ceremony of naming was
held, unless in the course of it a great victory, or other important
occurrence, was commemorated by the renaming of the year. The king must
have consulted with his priestly advisers before the close of the old
year, and have settled on the new formula in good time to allow of its
announcement in the outlying districts of the kingdom.
Another important religious class at this period was the guild of
soothsayers, and they also appear to have been directly under the royal
control. This we gather from a letter of Ammi-ditana, one of the later
kings of the First Dynasty, written to three high officials of Sippar,
which illustrates the nature of their duties and the sort of occasion
on which they were called upon to perform them.[42] It had come to
the king's knowledge that there was a scarcity of corn in Shagga,
and since that town was in the administrative district of Sippar,
he wrote to the officials concerned ordering them to send a supply
thither. But, before the corn was brought into the city, they were to
consult the soothsayers, in order to ascertain whether the omens were
favourable. The method of inquiry is not specified, but it was probably
liver-divination, which was in common use during all periods.[43] Only
if the omens proved favourable, was the corn to be brought into the
town, and Ave may conclude that the king took this precaution as he
feared that the scarcity of corn in Shagga was due to the anger of some
local deity. The astrologers would be able to ascertain the facts, and,
in the event of their reporting unfavourably, no doubt the services of
the local priesthood would have been called in.
We have already seen that flocks and herds which were owned by the
great temples were sometimes pastured with those of the king, and there
is abundant evidence that the king also superintended the collection
of temple-revenues along with his own. Collectors of both secular and
ecclesiastical tribute sent reports directly to the king, and, if there
was any deficit in the supply expected from a collector, he had to make
it up himself. From one of Hammurabi's letters, for example, we gather
that two landowners, or money-lenders, had lent money or advanced
seed-corn to certain farmers near the towns of Dûr-gurgurri and Rakhabu
and along the Tigris, and in settlement of their claims had seized the
crops, refusing to pay the proportion due to Bît-il-kittim, the great
temple of the Sun-god at Larsa. The governor of Larsa, the principal
city in the district, had rightly, as the representative of the palace,
caused the tax-collector to make up the deficiency, but Hammurabi, on
receiving the subordinate officer's complaint, referred the matter
back to the governor, and we may infer from similar cases that the
defaulting parties had to make good the loss and submit to fines or
punishment.[44] The document throws an interesting light on the methods
of government administration, and the manner in which the king gave
personal supervision to the smallest details.
It will be obvious that for the administration of the country a large
body of officials were required, and of their number two classes,
of a semi-military character, enjoyed the king's special favour and
protection. They were placed in charge of public works and looked after
and controlled the public slaves, and they probably also had a good
deal to do with the collection of the revenue. As payment for their
duties, they were each granted land with a house and garden; they were
assigned sheep and cattle to stock their land, and in addition they
Received a regular salary. They were, in a sense, personal retainers
of the king, and were liable to be sent at any moment on a special
mission. Disobedience was severely punished, for if such an officer,
when detailed for special service, hired a substitute, he was liable
to be put to death and the substitute could take his office. Sometimes
an officer was sent to take charge of a distant garrison for a long
period, and when this was done his home duties were performed by
another man, who temporarily occupied his house and land, and gave
it back to the officer on his return. If the officer had a son old
enough to perform the duty in his father's absence, he war allowed to
do so; and, if he was too young, his maintenance was paid for out of
the estate. Should the officer fail to arrange, before his departure,
for the proper cultivation of his land and the discharge of his local
duties, another could take his place after the lapse of a year, and
on his return he could not reclaim his land or office. When on garrison
duty, or on special service, he ran the risk of capture by the enemy,
and in that event his ransom was assured. For if his own means did
not suffice, the sum had to be paid from the treasury of the local
temple, and in the last resort by the state. It was specially enacted
that his land, garden, and house were in no case to be sold to pay
for his ransom. They were inalienably attached to the office he held,
which appears to have been entailed in the male line, since he was
precluded from bequeathing any of the property to his wife or daughter.
They could only pass from him and his male issue through neglect or
disobedience.
[Illustration: IMPRESSIONS OF BABYLONIAN CILINDER SEALS. _Brit. Mus.,
Nos._ 89771, 89388, 89110, 89367.]
It is not improbable that the existence of this specially favoured
class of officer dates back to the earliest settlement of the Western
Semites in Babylonia. The first of their number may well have been
personal retainers and followers of Sumu-abum, the founder of the
dynasty. Originally soldiers, they were probably assigned lands
throughout the country in return for their services to the king, and
they continued to serve him by maintaining order and upholding his
authority. In the course of time specified duties were assigned to
them, but they retained their privileges, and they must have remained
a very valuable body of officers, on whose personal loyalty the king
could always rely. In the case of war, they may have assisted in
mobilization for the army was probably raised on a territorial basis,
much on the lines of the _corvée_ for public works which was under
their control.
By contemporary documents of the period much light is thrown on other
classes of the population, but, as they were all connected with various
departments in the commercial or agricultural life of the community,
it will be unnecessary to describe them in further detail. One class
perhaps deserves mention, the surgeons, since lack of professional
skill was rather heavily penalized. For if a surgeon, when called in
by a noble, carried out an operation so unskilfully as to cause his
death or inflict a permanent injury upon him, such as the loss of an
eye, the punishment was amputation of both hands. No penalty appears
to have been enacted if the patient were a member of the middle class,
but should the slave of such a man die as the result of an operation,
the surgeon had to give the owner another slave; and, in the event of
the slave losing his eye, he had to pay the owner half the slave's
value. There was, of course, no secular class in the population which
corresponded to the modern doctor, for the medicinal use of herbs and
drugs was not separated from their employment in magic. Disease was
looked upon as due to the agency of evil spirits, or of those that
controlled them, and though many potions were doubtless drunk of a
curative nature, they were taken at the instance of the magician,
not of the doctor, and to the accompaniment of magical rites and
incantations.[45]
In the religious sphere, the rise of Babylon to the position of
capital led to a number of important changes, and to a revision of
the Babylonian pantheon. Marduk, the god of Babylon, from being
a comparatively obscure city-god, underwent a transformation in
proportion to the increase in his city's importance. The achievements
and attributes of Enlil, the chief Sumerian deity, were ascribed to
him, and the old Sumerian sagas and legends, particularly those of
the creation of the world, were rewritten in this new spirit by the
Babylonian priesthood. The beginning of the process may be accurately
dated to the year of Hammurabi's conquest of Rîm-Sin and his subsequent
control of Nippur, the ancient centre of the old Sumerian faith. It
does not appear that the earlier Semites, when they conquered that
city, had ever attempted to modify the old traditions they found there,
or to appropriate them for their local gods. But a new spirit was
introduced with the triumph of the Western Semites. The Sumerians were
then a dying race, and the gradual disappearance of their language as
a living tongue was accompanied by a systematic translation, and a
partial transformation, of their sacred literature. Enlil could not be
entirely ousted from the position he had so long enjoyed, but Marduk
became his greater son. The younger god is represented as winning his
position by his own valour, in coming to the help of the older gods
when their very existence was threatened by the dragons of chaos; and,
having slain the monster of the deep, he is portrayed as creating
the universe from her severed body.[46] The older legends, no doubt,
continued to be treasured in the ancient cult-centres of the land, but
the Babylonian versions, under royal sanction and encouragement, tended
to gain wide recognition and popularity.
Under the later kings of the First Dynasty a great impetus was also
given to all branches of literary activity. The old Sumerian language
still bulked largely in the phraseology of legal and commercial
documents, as well as in the purely religious literature of the
country. And, to aid them in their study of the ancient texts, the
Semitic scribes undertook a systematic compilation of explanatory
lists of words and ideograms--the earliest form of dictionary,--which
continued in use into the Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods. The
Sumerian texts, too, were copied out and furnished with inter-linear
Semitic translations. The astronomical and astrological studies and
records of the Sumerian priests were taken over, and great collections
were compiled in combination with the early Akkadian records that
had come down to them. A study of the Babylonian literature affords
striking proof that the semitizing of the country led to no break, nor
set-back, in Babylonian culture. The older texts and traditions were
taken over in bulk, and, except where the rank or position of Marduk
was affected, little change or modification was made. The Semitic
scribes no doubt developed their inheritance, but expansion took place
on the old lines.
In commercial life, too, Sumerian customs remained to a great extent
unaltered. Taxes, rent, and prices continued to be paid in kind, and
though the talent, maneh, and shekel were in use as metal weights, and;
silver was in partial circulation, no true currency was developed. In
the sale of land, for example, even during the period of the Kassite
kings, the purchase-price was settled in shekel-weights of silver, but
very little metal actually changed hands. Various items were exchanged
against the land, and these, in addition I to corn, the principal
medium of exchange, included slaves, animals, weapons, garments, etc.,
the value of each item being reckoned on the same silver basis, until
the agreed purchase-price was made up. The early Semitic Babylonian,
despite his commercial activity, did not advance beyond the transition
stage between pure barter and a regular currency.
One important advantage conferred by the Western Semite on the country
of his adoption was an increase in the area of its commercial relations
and a political expansion to the north and west. He systematized its
laws, and placed its internal administration on a wider--and more
uniform basis. But the greatest and most far-reaching change of the
Hammurabi period was that the common speech of the whole of Babylonia
became Semitic, as did the dominant racial element in the population.
And it was thanks to this fact that all subsequent invasions of the
country failed to alter the main features in her civilization. Such
alien strains were absorbed in process of time, and, though they
undoubtedly introduced fresh blends into the racial mixture, the
Semitic element triumphed, and continued to receive reinforcements
from the parent stock. The Sumerian race and language appear to have
survived longest in the extreme south of the country, and we shall see
that the rise of the Sea-Country kings may perhaps be regarded as their
last effective effort in the political sphere.
[Footnote 1: The Code was first published and translated by Scheil,
in the "Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse," Vol. IV. (1902), and
the accompanying photographie facsimile remains the best authority
for the text. For the fullest and best bibliography to the immense
mass of literature which has grown up around it, see Johns, "Schweich
Lectures," 1912, pp. 65 ff.; the most accessible versions in English
are those by Johns in "Babylonian and Assyrian Laws, Contracts
and Letters" (1904), pp. 44 ff., and in Hastings' "Dictionary of
the Bible," Vol. V. For the linguistic study of the text Ungnad's
transliteration and glossary in Kohler and Ungnad's "Hammurabi's
Gesetz," Bd. II. (1909), may be specially mentioned.]
[Footnote 2: For the latest bibliography to the early
contract-literature see Schorr, "Urkunden des altbabylonischen Zivil-
und Prozessrechts" (published in the "Vorderasiatische Bibliothek,"
1913), pp. xlix. ff. The great bulk of the royal letters are in the
British Museum and are translated in "Letters and Inscriptions of
Hammurabi, etc." (1898-1900); and for publications of private letters
of the period, see Schorr, _op cit.,_ p. lvi.]
[Footnote 3: See Clay, "Orient. Lit.-Zeit," 1914 (January), "A Sumerian
Prototype of the Hammurabi Code." The text, of which Prof. Clay has
sent me a photograph, is of the greatest importance for the study of
Babylonian law; he is at present preparing it for publication.]
[Footnote 4: The Babylonian name for a member of the upper class was
_awîlum,_ "man," and, when employed in this special sense, it is best
translated by some such expression as "patrician" or "noble." But for
legislative purposes, as well as in common parlance, _awîlum_ could be
employed in its more general meaning to include members of the middle
class.]
[Footnote 5: They were known as _mushkênum,_ derived from the
Shafel-Piel stem of the root (_kânu_), with the meaning "to humble
oneself, to be humble." Combe has compared the similar use of _miskîn_
in Arabic for a man of humble station who is not a descendant of the
prophet (cf. "Babyloniaca," III., p. 73 f.). The word passed into
Hebrew as _miskên,_ and, with modifications of meaning, into more than
one European language (cf. Ital. _meschino, meschinello,_ Portug.
_mesquinho,_ French _mesquin_); see Johns, "Schweich Lectures"
(1912), pp. 8, 74.]
[Footnote 6: Herodotus (I., 193) bears witness to the great fertility
of Babylonia, stating that of all countries of the ancient world it was
the most fruitful in grain.]
[Footnote 7: On the early system of tribal ownership, which survived
even the Kassite conquest and requisitions, see below, pp. 249 ff.]
[Footnote 8: In fact, the _métayer_ system was in force, the landlord
finding the cattle, agricultural implements, and seed for the culture
of the fields; cf. Johns, "Schweich Lectures," p. 5.]
[Footnote 9: See the five letters of Ammi-zaduga, in "Letters of Ham."
III., pp. 162 ff.]
[Footnote 10: For the loss of an eye the hirer paid half the beast's
value, and a quarter for a broken horn, the loss of the tail, or a torn
muzzle.]
[Footnote 11: See § 256 of the Code.]
[Footnote 12: Cf. "Letters of Hammurabi," III., pp. 130 ff.]
[Footnote 13: They are also referred to by Herodotus (I., 193), but not
described.]
[Footnote 14: At Hit on the Euphrates are some of the largest
water-wheels in Mesopotamia, a line of them being built across one
portion of the river.]
[Footnote 15: Cf. "Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus.," XXVI., p. 26.]
[Footnote 16: See Fig. 40, and cf. Clay, "Documents from the Temple
Archives of Nippur," in the "Museum Publications of the Univ. of
Pennsylvania," Vol. II., No. 2 (1912), p. 65, from which the drawing
has been taken.]
[Footnote 17: See Plate XXI., opposite p. 248.]
[Footnote 18: Cf. Frank, "Das Symbol der Göttin Gestinna," in the
"Hilprecht Anniversary Volume" (1909), pp. 104 ff.]
[Footnote 19: Cf. Place, "Ninive et l'Assyrie," III., pl. 31; the
plough is there depicted in yellow enamel on a blue ground.]
[Footnote 20: See Budge and King, "Guide to the Babylonian and Assyrian
Antiquities in the British Museum," 2nd ed. (1908), p. 221, Figure.
George Rawlinson ("Ancient Monarchies," I., p. 567) had already
explained the seed-drill in the plough on Esarhaddon's stone.]
[Footnote 21: The Babylonian word for plough, _ḳanḳannu,_ has also
survived in the Syriac _kenkĕnā,_ and the Rabbinic _ḳanḳannâ_; cf.
Frank, _op. cit.,_ p. 165 f. This use of the determinative _erû,_
"copper," before the Babylonian word, suggests that metal was employed
for the plough-share from a very early period.]
[Footnote 22: On the cultivation of the date-palm and the Babylonian
method of artificial fertilization, see Herodotus, I., 193; and cp.
Tylor, "Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch.," XII. (1890), pp. 383 ff.]
[Footnote 23: Even the modern Arabic name for such a raft, _kelek,_ is
derived from the Assyrian word for the same form of vessel, _kalaku,_
as was first pointed out by Johnson.]
[Footnote 24: This is the custom at the present day, and we know
that it also existed at the time of Herodotus (cf. I., 194); but his
description of the structure of the "boats" applies, not to the raft or
_kelek,_ but to the _gufa,_ a small coracle, which was used only for
local traffic.]
[Footnote 25: See Fig. 42; and cf. p. 179, n. 2.]
[Footnote 26: See Plate XV., opposite p. 184.]
[Footnote 27: Cf. "Letters," III., p. 16 f.]
[Footnote 28: See above, p. 127 f.]
[Footnote 29: See below, p. 215 f.]
[Footnote 30: See above, pp. 82 ff.]
[Footnote 31: The fact that, so far as they have yet been examined,
the lines of the streets appear to have altered little during the time
from the First Dynasty to the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods, is
at least presumptive evidence in favour of assigning the main lines of
the street-plan on the Merkes Mound to the age of Hammurabi and his
descendants; see above, p. 85 f.]
[Footnote 32: In the case of proved adultery, drowning was the penalty
for the guilty parties; but the husband could save his wife, if he
wished to do so, by appeal to the king. If the charge was brought by
the husband himself, a woman could clear herself by swearing to her
own innocence; but, if others brought the charge, she had to submit to
the ordeal by water. She plunged into the Euphrates, and should she be
drowned, it was regarded as proof of guilt; but if she got safely to
the bank her innocence was established. It was believed that the Sacred
River would see that justice was done; see §§ 131 f. of the Code, and
cp. § 2.]
[Footnote 33: The wife could also divorce her husband, if she
could prove that her past life had been seemly; she then took her
marriage-portion and returned to her father's house. For laws as to
breach of promise (based on the payment of the bride-price), see §§
159-101 of the Code.]
[Footnote 34: There was an important guild of votaries attached to
E-babbar, the temple of the Sun-god at Sippar, a second at Ur, and
another at E-sagila, the great temple of Marduk at Babylon, where they
had special privileges.]
[Footnote 35: Prof. Myres, in commenting on the industrial status
found for these unmarried women, remarks that, with manufactures and
commerce standing so high in the economy of Babylonia, it is not to be
wondered at if the social structure of the country developed some of
the same features as begin to perplex our modern world: cf. "Dawn of
Civilization," p. 97.]
[Footnote 36: See "Letters of Hammurabi," III., pp. 20 ff.]
[Footnote 37: _Op. cit.,_ III., pp. 23 ff., 26 f.]
[Footnote 38: Cf. "Sumer and Akkad," pp. 167 f., 172 f.]
[Footnote 39: Cf. "Letters," III., p. 12 f.]
[Footnote 40: Cf. "Sumer and Akkad," p. 57 f.]
[Footnote 41: Ungnad ("Beitr. z. Assyr.," VI., Hft. 3, p. 7 f.) has
collected a number of formulæ from documents, dated either on the first
day of Nisan, or within the first six days of the year, which suggest
that this was the practice; even the completion of the cutting of a
canal might have been foreseen. Very rarely, a formula may have been
framed from an important event of the preceding year, perhaps occurring
towards its close; the defeat of Nîsin in Sin-muballit's seventeenth
date-formula is an instance in point, since one document which bears
the formula is dated on the sixth of Nisan. But there is little to
be said for Poebel's theory (cf. "Babylonian Legal and Business
Documents," pp. 109 ff.), which is based on the assumption that this
was the usual practice. For editions of the First Dynasty date-formulæ,
see "Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi," III., pp. 212 ff.; Poebel,
"Legal and Business Documents," pp. 56 ff.; Johns, "Year-Names of the
First Dynasty of Babylon" (1911); and Schorr, "Urkunden," pp. 582 ff.]
[Footnote 42: See "Letters of Hammurabi," III., pp. 157 ff.]
[Footnote 43: See Jastrow, "Religion," Bd. II., _passim._]
[Footnote 44: See "Letters," III., pp. 49 ff. From a letter of
Abi-eshu' (_op. cit.,_ p. 153 f.), we gather that the king held the
merchants of Sippar ultimately responsible for their city's tribute.]
[Footnote 45: See below, p. 240.]
[Footnote 46: On the composite character of the Creation Series, and
the historical lines of its development, see "The Seven Tablets of
Creation," I., pp. lxvi. ff.]